DOCSLIB.ORG

Not for Publication United States District Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Not for Publication United States District Court Case 1:12-cv-07736-JBS Document 8 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: <pageID> NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ___________________________________ : JARIO GAMBOA VICTORIA, : : Petitioner, : Civil Action No. 12-7736 (JBS) : v. : : OPINION : JORDAN R. HOLLINGSWORTH, : : Respondent. : ___________________________________ : APPEARANCES: JARIO GAMBOA VICTORIA, #88389-198 F.C.I. Fort Dix P.O. 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Petitioner Pro Se PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney By: Irene E. Dowdy Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Office of the U.S. Attorney 401 Market Street P.O. Box 2098 Camden, NJ 08101 Attorney for Respondent SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: Jario Gamboa Victoria, a federal inmate confined at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his imprisonment pursuant to a federal sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Case 1:12-cv-07736-JBS Document 8 Filed 06/21/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID: <pageID> Florida. Respondent filed an Answer and Petitioner filed a Reply. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, this Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and possession with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), 70506(a) and (b). (Resp’t’s Answer 5.) During his guilty plea, the factual bases surrounding the charges were read into the record. (Id.) Among the facts recited was that Petitioner was apprehended by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard approximately 245 nautical miles northeast of the Galapagos Islands. (Id.) With counsel present, Petitioner stated that he had no disagreement with the factual recitation. (Id.) On July 27, 2007, he was sentenced to a 240 month term of imprisonment. (Id.) Petitioner is now incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey and signed his § 2241 Petition for filing on December 14, 2012. He brings this case stating two grounds for relief: “New 11th Circuit Law - - No jurisdiction in territorial waters” and “Illegal Incarcerated, No jurisdiction to impose prison sentence.” (Pet. 6.) In the memorandum in support of his petition, Petitioner argues that pursuant to United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012), the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence, and the “act for which Petitioner was convicted is no longer considered to be a crime, and he cannot raise this issue in a § 2255 motion.” (Pet’r’s Mem. 1.) In Bellaizac-Hurtado, the Eleventh Circuit held that Congress did not have the authority under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to proscribe prosecution for 2 Case 1:12-cv-07736-JBS Document 8 Filed 06/21/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID: <pageID> drug trafficking occurring in territorial waters. See Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d at 1258. However, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that Congress is empowered to prosecute drug trafficking conduct that took place in international waters. See id. at 1257 (collecting cases).1 Seizing on this key distinction, Respondent argues that Bellaizac-Hurtado does not help Petitioner here because the vessel on which Petitioner was apprehended was not stopped in the territorial waters of another nation. (ECF No. 6.) Respondent further asserts that this Court should dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Id.) II. DISCUSSION Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A challenge to the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974); Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). This is because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 expressly prohibits a district court from entertaining a challenge to a prisoner’s federal sentence under § 2241 unless the remedy by motion under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e);2 see Cradle v. U.S. ex 1The matter of United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012), will be discussed in more detail infra. 2 The “inadequate or ineffective” language was necessary because the Supreme Court held that “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person’s detention does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.” Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977). Specifically, § 2255(e) provides: An application for a writ of habeas corpus [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241] in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, 3 Case 1:12-cv-07736-JBS Document 8 Filed 06/21/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID: <pageID> rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997); Millan-Diaz v. Parker, 444 F.2d 95 (3d Cir. 1971). A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective, authorizing resort to § 2241, only where the petitioner demonstrates that he “had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law could negate with retroactive application.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). For example, in Dorsainvil, the Third Circuit held that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective for Dorsainvil’s claim that he was imprisoned for conduct that the Supreme Court ruled in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), was not a crime, where the Supreme Court issued Bailey after Dorsainvil’s § 2255 motion was denied on the merits and after the Third Circuit ruled that Dorsainvil could not meet either of the gatekeeping requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) to authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255 motion.3 See Dorsainvil, 119 F. 3d at 250 (“A Supreme Court decision interpreting a criminal statute that resulted in the imprisonment of one whose conduct was not prohibited by law presents exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent”). Here, Petitioner claims that he is imprisoned for conduct that the Eleventh Circuit (the circuit wherein he was convicted) deemed non-criminal in United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). 3 Section 2255(h) provides that a second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional laws, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) and (2). 4 Case 1:12-cv-07736-JBS Document 8 Filed 06/21/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID: <pageID> F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012), a ruling issued after his conviction became final and the time to file a § 2255 motion expired. In Bellaizac-Hurtado, the Eleventh Circuit reversed convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501, et seq., on direct appeal on the ground that Congress lacked “the power under the Offences Clause to proscribe drug trafficking in the territorial waters of another nation.”4 Id. at 1249. In this case, the holding of Bellaizac-Hurtado does not render Petitioner’s conduct non-criminal because, here, Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking in international waters, not in the territorial waters of another nation. The United States recognizes a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles. See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 441 n.8 (1989) (“On December 28, 1988, the President announced that the United States would henceforth recognize a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles”); 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 3 (entered into force Nov. 16, 1994) (Territorial waters are the coastal waters extending seaward at most for four leagues or twelve nautical miles from the baseline of a nation, and the high seas is the entire body of waters stretching seaward of the nation’s territorial waters). At Petitioner’s plea hearing, the Government offered facts related to the location of Petitioner’s vessel, stating that the vessel was located “245 nautical miles northeast of the Galapagos Islands.” (Respt’s’ Answer 5; Ex. 3, Plea Hr’g Tr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LIS-133: Antigua and Barbuda: Archipelagic and Other Maritime
    United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Limits in the Seas No. 133 Antigua and Barbuda: Archipelagic and other Maritime Claims and Boundaries LIMITS IN THE SEAS No. 133 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ARCHIPELAGIC AND OTHER MARITIME CLAIMS AND BOUNDARIES March 28, 2014 Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State This study is one of a series issued by the Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs in the Department of State. The purpose of the series is to examine a coastal State’s maritime claims and/or boundaries and assess their consistency with international law. This study represents the views of the United States Government only on the specific matters discussed therein and does not necessarily reflect an acceptance of the limits claimed. This study, and earlier studies in this series, may be downloaded from http://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/c16065.htm. Comments and questions should be emailed to [email protected]. Principal analysts for this study are Brian Melchior and Kevin Baumert. 1 Introduction This study analyzes the maritime claims and maritime boundaries of Antigua and Barbuda, including its archipelagic baseline claim. The Antigua and Barbuda Maritime Areas Act, 1982, Act Number 18 of August 17, 1982 (Annex 1 to this study), took effect September 1, 1982, and established a 12-nautical mile (nm) territorial sea, 24-nm contiguous zone and 200-nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ).1 Pursuant to Act No.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Centre
    Fisheries Centre The University of British Columbia Working Paper Series Working Paper #2015 - 76 Preliminary reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands in EEZ equivalent waters (1950-2010) Darah Gibson, Emma Cardwell, Kyrstn Zylich and Dirk Zeller Year: 2015 Email: [email protected] This working paper is made available by the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. PRELIMINARY RECONSTRUCTION OF TOTAL MARINE FISHERIES CATCHES FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE CHANNEL ISLANDS IN EEZ EQUIVALENT WATERS (1950-2010) Darah Gibsona, Emma Cardwellb, Kyrstn Zylicha and Dirk Zellera a Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada b School of Geography and Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, England [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract Fisheries catches are reconstructed for the United Kingdom (UK) including England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. The Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) are reconstructed separately, as their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) equivalent waters are outside of the UK’s EEZ. Publically available reported landings data from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) are used as a baseline for the reconstruction. Estimates of discarded, recreational and unreported catch are used from peer-reviewed and grey literature as well as government reports to reconstruct the fisheries of the UK. The UK’s total reconstructed catch including England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man is 35% higher than the reported landings for the same entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation Prepared by Secretariat. UPDATED May 09
    ICSP8/UNFSA/INF.4/Rev Eighth round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Sources of available assistance for developing States and the needs of developing States for capacity-building and assistance in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks Compilation prepared by the Secretariat * Summary The present compilation contains a list of sources of financial assistance and other available vehicles for assistance that could be accessed by developing States to increase their capacity in the conservation and management of fishery resources, including straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. It also contains information on the needs of developing States with regard to capacity-building and assistance in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The information is provided pursuant to a recommendation of the seventh round of informal consultations of States parties to the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (the Agreement), held in New York, 11 to 12 March 2008 (ICSP-7). * Updated on 26 May 2009. 1 ICSP8/UNFSA/INF.4/Rev Contents Page I. Introduction . 3 II. Sources of available assistance for developing States for the conservation and management of fishery resources, including straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks .
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction (As at 15 July 2011)
    Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction (as at 15 July 2011) Introductory note: The present, unofficial table of claims to maritime jurisdiction is a reference material based on national legislation and other relevant information obtained from reliable sources with a view to ensuring the most accurate representation of the status of claims. Despite extensive research and periodic review, however, the table may not always reflect the latest developments, especially those which have not been brought to the attention of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations. To report any new developments or inaccuracies regarding the status of claims, please contact the Division, Room DC2-0460, United Nations, New York, NY 10017, or send an email to: [email protected]. Concerning the approach which has been adopted with respect to the information regarding the continental shelf, the following is to be noted: The Convention on the Continental Shelf which was adopted in Geneva on 29 April 1958 (“the 1958 Geneva Convention”) defines the term "continental shelf" as: (a) the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; and (b) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands. Under the provisions of article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (“the 1982 Convention”), the continental shelf extends up to the outer edge of the continental margin, or up to 200 nautical miles where the outer edge does not extend up to 200 nautical miles, or up to the line of delimitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal State's Jurisdiction Over Foreign Vessels
    Pace International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 1 Spring 2002 Article 2 April 2002 Coastal State's Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels Anne Bardin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Anne Bardin, Coastal State's Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels, 14 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 27 (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol14/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES COASTAL STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN VESSELS Anne Bardin I. Introduction ....................................... 28 II. The Rights and Duties of States in the Different Sea Zones Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ............................. 30 A. Internal W aters ............................... 30 1. Jurisdiction Over Foreign Merchant V essels ..................................... 30 2. Jurisdiction Over Foreign Warships ....... 31 3. The Right of all Vessels to Free Access to P ort ........................................ 32 B. The Territorial Sea ............................ 33 1. Innocent Passage in the Territorial Sea .... 34 2. Legislative Competence of the Coastal State ....................................... 35 3. Implementation of its Legislation by the Coastal State .............................. 36 4. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Coastal State ....................................... 37 5. W arships .................................. 39 C. The Contiguous Zone .......................... 39 D. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) ........... 40 1. Rights of the Coastal State in its EEZ ..... 41 2. Artificial Islands and Scientific Research .. 41 3. Rights of Foreign States in the EEZ ....... 43 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Territorial Sea Laws 1964 and 2014
    REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 45 of 1964 95(1) of 2014. THE TERRITORIAL SEA LAWS 1964 AND 2014 (English translation and consolidation) Office of the Law Commissioner Nicosia, October, 2014 rEN(A) - L.120 ISBN 978-9963-664-58-0 NICOSIA PRINTED AT THE PRINTING OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS Price: CONTENTS Note for the Reader .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii The Territorial Sea Laws 1964 and 2014 (Consolidation in English) ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ... 1 NOTE FOR THE READER The publication at hand by the Office of the Law Commissioner is an English translation and consolidation of the Territorial Sea Laws 1964 and 2014 [i.e. Laws 45 of 1964, 95(1)/2014]. However useful the English translation of the consolidated Laws is in practice, it does not replace the original text of the Laws since only the Greek text of the Laws published in the Official Gazette of the Republic is authentic. The Office of the Law Commissioner shall not be under any liability to any person or organisation in respect of any loss or damage, including consequential loss or damage, however caused, which may be incurred or arises directly or indirectly from reliance on information in this publication. Copyright© Office of the Law Commissioner, Nicosia 2014. Reproduction authorised without prior application. Reference to the source will be appreciated. iii 45 of 1964 A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE BREADTH 95(1) of 2014. OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA The House of Representatives enacts as follows: Short 1. This Law may be cited as the Territorial Sea Laws, 1964 and 2014. title. 2(a) of 95(1)/2014 2(b) of 95(1)/2014.
    [Show full text]
  • The Falkland Islands & Their Adjacent Maritime Area
    International Boundaries Research Unit MARITIME BRIEFING Volume 2 Number 3 The Falkland Islands and their Adjacent Maritime Area Patrick Armstrong and Vivian Forbes Maritime Briefing Volume 2 Number 3 ISBN 1-897643-26-8 1997 The Falkland Islands and their Adjacent Maritime Area by Patrick Armstrong and Vivian Forbes Edited by Clive Schofield International Boundaries Research Unit Department of Geography University of Durham South Road Durham DH1 3LE UK Tel: UK + 44 (0) 191 334 1961 Fax: UK +44 (0) 191 334 1962 E-mail: [email protected] www: http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk The Authors Patrick Armstrong teaches biogeography and environmental management in the Geography Department of the University of Western Australia. He also cooperates with a colleague from that University’s Law School in the teaching of a course in environmental law. He has had a long interest in remote islands, and has written extensively on this subject, and on the life and work of the nineteenth century naturalist Charles Darwin, another devotee of islands. Viv Forbes is a cartographer, map curator and marine geographer based at the University of Western Australia. His initial career was with the Merchant Navy, and it was with them that he spent many years sailing the waters around Australia, East and Southeast Asia. He is the author of a number of publications on maritime boundaries, particularly those of the Indian Ocean region. Acknowledgements Travel to the Falkland Islands for the first author was supported by a grant from the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration. Part of the material in this Briefing was presented as a paper at the 4th International Boundaries Conference, IBRU, Durham, July 1996; travel by PHA to this conference was supported by the Faculty of Science of the University of Western Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Options for a Bermuda Nearshore Marine Spatial Planning Process
    Policy Options for a Bermuda Nearshore Marine Spatial Planning Process November 2016 i | P a g e ENVIRONME NTAL LAW INSTITUTE Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS). The primary author was Read D. Porter, with valuable contributions and review from Dr. Kathryn Mengerink, Bruce Myers, David Roche, and Xiao Recio-Blanco. The authors wish to express their gratitude to BIOS, which provided funding for this report, and to Dr. Kevin Mayall in particular for his generous contributions in time, expertise, and hospitality. In addition, we thank the Government of Bermuda and its staff for their willingness to discuss MSP and for providing crucial information and expertise needed for this report. The contents of this report, including any errors and omissions, are solely the responsibility of ELI. About ELI Publications ELI publishes Research Reports that present the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies ELI undertakes to improve environmental law and policy. In addition, ELI publishes several journals and reporters—including the Environmental Law Reporter, The Environmental Forum, and the National Wetlands Newsletter—and books, which contribute to education of the profession and disseminate diverse points of view and opinions to stimulate a robust and creative exchange of ideas. Those publications, which express opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute, its Board of Directors, or funding organizations, exemplify ELI’s commitment to dialogue with all sectors. ELI welcomes suggestions for article and book topics and encourages the submission of draft manuscripts. An electronic retrievable copy (PDF file) of this report may be obtained for no cost from the Environmental Law Institute website at www.eli.org or www.eli-ocean.org.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Malvinas Crisis?: Argentina and Oil Prospecting Off the Falkland Islands
    Tom Freije Powering up: Latin America's energy challenges: the second Malvinas crisis?: Argentina and oil prospecting off the Falkland Islands Report Original citation: Freije, Tom (2010) Powering up: Latin America's energy challenges: the second Malvinas crisis?: Argentina and oil prospecting off the Falkland Islands. IDEAS reports - strategic updates, Kitchen, Nicholas (ed.) SU005. LSE IDEAS, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43665/ Originally available from LSE IDEAS Available in LSE Research Online: May 2012 © 2010 The Author LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. The Second Malvinas crisis? Argentina and Oil Prospecting Off the Falkland Islands OTCHA” was the iconic British tabloid title that greeted the sinking of the Belgrano, the Argentine battle ship, in one of the most controversial events “G TOM FREIJE during the brief but costly 1982 conflict between Argentina and is the Energy Editor the UK over the Falklands Islands. Never particularly sensitive, at the Economist one wonders how the same paper would now greet a sizable Intelligence Unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997
    TERRITORIAL SEA ACT 1987 (JERSEY) ORDER 1997 JERSEY REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS 15.800 APPENDIX 3 Jersey Order in Council 8/1997 The Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997 Jersey Order in Council 8/1997 THE TERRITORIAL SEA ACT 1987 (JERSEY) ORDER 1997 ____________ (Registered on the 14th day of March 1997) ____________ At the Court at Buckingham Palace ____________ 12th February 1997 ____________ PRESENT The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council ____________ HER MAJESTY, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by section 4(4) of the Territorial Sea Act 1987, is pleased, by and with the advice of the Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows – 1. This Order may be cited as the Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 31st March 1997. 2. The Territorial Sea Act 1987 shall extend to the Bailiwick of Jersey with the exceptions, adaptations and modifications specified in the Schedule to this Order. N.H. NICHOLLS Clerk of the Privy Council. Revised Edition – 31 August 2004 Page - 3 Chapter 15.800 4 Jersey Order in Council 8/1997 The Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997 SCHEDULE (Article 2) EXCEPTIONS, ADAPTATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS IN THE EXTENSION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA ACT 1987 TO THE BAILIWICK OF JERSEY 1. Any reference to an enactment shall be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to it as it has effect in the Bailiwick of Jersey. 2. In section 1 – (a) in subsections (1)(a), (2), (5) and (6), for “United Kingdom” there shall be substituted
    [Show full text]
  • US Customs and Border Protection
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treasury § 4.98 title 46, United States Code. 135 If any § 4.98 Navigation fees. such vessel engages in a salvage oper- ation in territorial waters of the (a)(1) The Customs Service shall pub- United States, the owner or master of lish a General Notice in the FEDERAL the vessel shall make a full report of REGISTER and Customs Bulletin peri- the operation as soon as possible to the odically, setting forth a revised sched- director of the port nearest the place ule of navigation fees for the following where the operation was conducted. services: (e) A Mexican vessel may engage in a Fee No. and description of services salvage operation on a Mexican vessel in any territorial waters of the United 1 Entry of vessel, including American, from States in which Mexican vessels are foreign port: permitted to conduct such operations (a) Less than 100 net tons. by the treaty between the United (b) 100 net tons and over. States and Mexico signed on June 13, 2 Clearance of vessel, including American, to foreign port: 136 1935. (a) Less than 100 net tons. [28 FR 14596, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by (b) 100 net tons or over. T.D. 69–266, 34 FR 20423, Dec. 31, 1969] 3 Issuing permit to foreign vessel to proceed from port to port, and receiving mani- to any vessels wrecked, disabled or in dis- fest. tress in the waters or on the shores of the 4 Receiving manifest of foreign vessel on other country in that portion of the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Islands and Territory in International Law
    Artificial Islands and Territory in International Law Dr. Imogen Saunders* ABSTRACT Artificially created islands are a contemporary reality, created and used for military and nonmilitary purposes. Analysis of such islands has largely been limited to their status under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regime. Their position under general international law, however, remains unclear. In particular, the question of whether artificial islands can constitute sovereign territory remains unanswered. This Article analyzes the concept of territory in international law in the context of artificial islands, and argues that neither the doctrine of territory nor the strictures of UNCLOS prevent artificial islands from constituting territory capable of sovereign appropriation. This is further confirmed by examining state practice relating to artificial islands. The Article argues that artificial islands can be considered territory if they meet certain criteria: albeit territory not generating a territorial sea. Understanding artificial islands as capable of constituting territory allows for a more comprehensive and consistent positioning of such islands in regards to other general international law doctrines. The Article demonstrates this through the application of the doctrine of the unlawful acquisition of territory to artificial islands. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 644 II. ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS AND THE CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA ......................................................................
    [Show full text]